The truth about the Khmer Rouge.

Seriously, are you tripping? Firstly:

You have no way of knowing this for a fact. Many people would question this statement. However, what really beggars belief is this outright declaration of insanity:

History is full of wars that have been supported by christians! Are you saying that the crusades are the only war in the last 2000 years that wasn't morally justified?!?!? Do you seriously believe that the Falklands was a moral war? Are you actually arguing that it had nothing to do with the Tory party wanting to get re-elected? Are you proposing that it was entirely unconnected with the British territorial rights that the Falklands give us in Antarctica? And are you blissfully unaware of the fact that Antarctica is believed to be rich in oil?

Please, this is too funny! Guess what? Muslims "have strong morals and weigh up the rights and wrongs of every situation". It doesn't seem to stop large numbers of them from killing women and children though, does it? It's perfectly possible to have "strong morals" which drive you to kill. Your world view appears to be hopelessly naive.

 

Yes, and the Falklands were a moral war because there were 2,000 British citizens who lived there and who were mistreated by occupying Argentinian armed forces and who did not want to live in a totalitarian police state which Argentina was at the time. We went to war then because we had a duty to protect British citizens, the Falkland islands are also part of the UK. Even the UN permits war of self defence if your country has been invaded as ours was in 1982!

As for your statment about Muslims, the vast majority of muslims totally condemn terrorism and wars of aggression. Though they would agree with a war of self defence, which is why many muslims in the armed forces went to fight in Afghanistan as it was seen as a war of self defence after the September 11th attacks. If you look in the Koran, it totally condemns the killing of innocent people. Terrorism is not condoned by the Koran in any way, shape or form!

 

Argh! Look, this really isn't complicated.... just because a war happens to have a positive moral outcome in one regard, it doesn't mean that the war was fought for moral reasons.

Please pay attention. You're missing the point. The Muslims who condone terrorism also see themselves as moral individuals. The point is it's perfectly possible to consider yourself religious and moral and still to perpetrate acts of evil. You might believe such beliefs to be ill-founded, but that doesn't stop people holding those beliefe.

 

But there Falklands were UK terrortry, it was not as if we were fighting for something we wanted to take from another country, they were ours already. Argentina had broken international law by invading them!

 

You're misssing the point. It was a war fought over oil and politics, regardless of whether it also happened to achieve an end that you consider 'ethical'. I do find it curious that you can define an island on the other side of the planet as "ours already" though.

As to your notion that this war was 'justified', does the death of 900 people seem a reasonable price to pay for keeping an island with a population of 1,800 as a British territory?

 

Bollocks since when has the Falkands produced anything other than wool. Its only industry is sheep famring and wool production! There have never been any plans to exploit oil reserves in the region.

Well were we to surrender those people to Argentina to live in a brutal, totalitarian state where torture and execution were commonplace, people who were our own citizens or were we to help them. The blame for the deaths lies squarly with the Argentinian government for starting the war. We didn't start it, they did by invading our terrortry!

 

Once again, you demonstrate how little you actually know about the subjects you blather on about. The Falkland Islands project British territory into Antarctica. Antarctica has long been believed to be rich in oil, and at this very moment there's a number of people in the Bush regime who are pushing to have its status as an international park overturned, and to allow drilling to begin.

Ummm, OK. You do of course know that in the 90s, Britain established a 200 mile oil exploration zone around the Falklands? And you obviously know that geological surveys have estimated that the waters around the Falklands may be capable of yielding up to 500,000 barrels of oil per day? And of course you realise that this would make the Falklands one of the world's largest oil producing regions? I assume you realise that exploratory drilling has already gone ahead? And obviously you must know that the Falkland Islands government actually has its own webpage dedicated to oil exploration in the region?No? Oh yeah, I forgot: you're a muppet.

...... or were to to send a task force to the area, kill a number of people equal to half the population of the islands, and secure our strategic oil reserves.

I see. So it's not actually our fault for doing the killing then? Curious.

You sound like a snotty kid. "Mum! I didn't start it! He started it!!!". Grow up. By what definition can you possibly consider an island on the far side of the planet to be "our territory"? And anyway, it's clear to any idiot that the war was primarily fought for oil. The fact that you didn't even know that oil existed in the region has already demonstrated your complete ignorance on the topic, and disqualified your opinions as those of a fool.

 

Not forgetting, of course, that Margaret Thatcher wanted a little boost to her popularity

 

Shit, we better not get on the wrong side of the US then or we'll be next on their hit list

 

I don't think the British public would have stood for the government abandoning 1,800 British subjects to a tyrannical regime like Argentina do you? The government had to act and I think the Falklands war would have happened under any government whether, Conservative, Labour or Liberal. The government could stand by and do nothing, that would have been seen as a terrible sign of weakness and would have been the end of that government.

 

Most of the British public didnt fucking know where the Falklands were!

 

So I've noticed

 

None of which changes the fact that the war was primarily about oil. Or do you think those 500,000 barrels a day sitting under the ocean nearby are just a strange coincidence?

And again, try answering some of the points in the thread rather than falling back on blowing the same old hot air out of your ass. Do you think that killing an number of people equal to half the population of the islands was a price worth paying?